Disgusted with politics and annoyed at fear mongering

I have self identified as Republican since about 1990.  I voted for Reagan and when he pussyed out with Iran in 1981 I was pretty pissed off.  It took me a long time to get over that.

Not that I would ever identify as a Democrat, slave mongering genocidal scum bags.  Andrew Jackson is a national disgrace and should be removed from the $20.  The United States first Democrat President was the most genocidal president in history and his "I'm too stubborn for abolitionists to change my mind" mule symbol is still the Democrats symbol.  FDR and his concentration camps, I could go on with Democrats genocidal behaviors from their support of slavery to their support of segregation and the hate/fear mongering they do today.

When Trump won the Republican nomination I began self identifying as Disgusted.

Back in the 1980s-90s Trump was going to build the worlds tallest building.  He totally failed, which made the World Trade Center Osama bin Laden's phallic target rather than some mythical Trump erection.  During the attempt to grow his massive mythical erection Donnie managed to alienate the entire New York city pseudo intellectual elitist power base.  Truthfully something I envy since I enjoy nothing better than pissing off a bunch of elitist pseudo intellectual morons, however, Donnie had to expand his business outside of New York since he had effectively eliminated himself from the New York real estate development market.  Donnie went international.

Any of you old couch potatoes who watched Dallas Reruns might remember when JR did the same thing and had to do the same thing.  So far Donnie has continued being somewhat successful in the international market, but, I figure it is only a matter of time before he alienates enough people in the international market that his business is finished.

So I didn't give a rats ass about all the B.S. people were spouting, Trump this, Trump that.  I couldn't verify any of that bullshit, except for his being a misogynist like Billy Clinton and his famous desk hole.  I didn't like Clinton even before that, after his lying about Monica I really had no use for him.  I already didn't have any use for Trump so the misogynist crap didn't sway me.  I already had no use for Trump, or Billy Clinton.

The lying propaganda and fear mongering annoyed me more than Trump's locker room banter.  At least he wasn't shoving cigars up inside some woman when she wasn't tucked into his knee space.

The United States can't expand onto other worlds when Donnie Trump alienates the rest of the world the way he alienated the New York pseudo intellectual elitists.  Now, yes, I kind of admire that in a way, but, to do business Trump needed those assholes working with him.  Alienating that bunch of scumbags was in direct opposition to Trump's own best interest, and the idiot did it anyway.

Regardless of the unverified hate speak I've seen published about Trump I think he will make a poor president, specifically because the idiot fucked himself up.  That is some self destructive, mommie didn't love me enough, bullshit right there.

Personally, I think all the lying bullshit just made Trump more electable.  Really, telling unverifiable lies just made Trump more attractive to a lot of people, and undermined the reality of the few truths that were told about him.  Sheeple are easily made afraid and all the people encouraging people to question their safety are just fear mongering.  First comes the fear, then the ridicule, then the hatred and finally people work themselves up to become violent, trying to protect themselves against an imaginary fear.

Pretty fucking sad.

Projecting probability of lithic artifact distribution across time in the Americas.

I would suggest that, by using proved statistical theory regarding atypical distribution of data it may be possible to determine a rough understanding of the minimum time frame of human occupation of the Americas.

Lithic artifact distribution in the Americas is probably related to population density.

To do this, we must ignore the arbitrary classifications of historic and prehistoric so that we can understand the distribution of population, and therefore artifact, density.

The density of artifact distribution is probably going to be a left skewed distribution where the distribution falls off suddenly when lithic technology is replaced with newer iron age technologies brought over from Europe, or when population density is decimated by European diseases.

We can assume that the modality of the distribution of lithic artifacts will be around the period of highest population density. When did Native Americans first encounter Europeans and European diseases? Vikings? Columbus? When did the population of the Americas begin to drop?

We can further assume that the farther left of the modality the less probable the discovery of artifacts is.

The farther we move from the mean, or the modality, the less probable it will be that we will find an artifact.

This implies that, if we find an artifact, the artifact is within the higher probabilities of the distribution of artifacts. In the case of a skewed distribution a discovered prehistoric artifact is probably between the mean, which will be on the left of the data point which the artifact represents, and the modality, which will be to the right of the data point the artifact represents.

This has some interesting implications. Some data points have been discovered as far back as 30-35 thousand years before present. Do we assume that these data points are to the right or the left of the mean? Chebychev’s Theorum describes the minimum probabilities of finding a data point in non-Gaussian distributions, however, it is not as easy to determine the probability of discovering a specific data point within the distribution without understanding the shape of the distribution.

Chebychev’s Theorum allows us to say, for example, that the highest possible probability of finding a data point between 2 and 3 standard deviations on either side of the mean is about 14%. However, with a left skewed distribution the probability of finding a data point to the right of the mean is higher than the probability of finding an artifact to the left of the mean.

Tom Clancy's The Divison by Ubisucks Massive

I love gaming.  Uncharted and Assassin's Creed are my two favorite game series.  I like 3rd person shooters.  1st person shooters tend to give me PTSD nightmares, but, I like Battlefield Bad Company 1 and 2.

Lately I've been playing Tom Clancy's The Division by Ubisoft, the publishers of Assassin's Creed.  Awesome potential and incredibly bad implementation.

The game is a semi-massive multi-player.  Players start out playing a campaign game while interacting with other players at various social sites called "safe areas".  There is no pause because various missions can be played by teams.  Playing campaign solo there is no reason for the game to stay connected to the Ubisucks servers, but, the game can't be played solo campaign unless it is connected to the Internet.

The first thing that is most obvious to me is a lack of overall management direction.  Every game is going to have multiple development teams working in different areas.  Division is so complex there are a crap load of different development areas with inconsistent goals.

The biggest problem is the elitist, "survival of the fittest", concept which is designed to eliminate less "fit" players from the game.

As expected, this works and reduces the number of people playing the "massive multi-layer".  We could call this a "minuscule multi-player" instead.

Of course, since their "survival of the fittest" concept worked players have been leaving the game in droves.  The other early morning I was running around the dark zone and didn't see any other players for about a half hour.  Of course, the first time I did it was a higher level rogue and it killed me.

The game actually rewards players who kill lower level players in the Dark Zone, which is all multi-player.  In the campaign game Non Player Characters, NPC, are generally the same level as the player.

If the game wanted to encourage player to player competition, players would be penalized for attacking lower level players and rewarded for attacking players of the same level or higher.  Instead, consistent with the "survival of the fittest" ideology killing off "weaker" players is encouraged.  How dumb is that?

There are tons of really bad and very inconsistent development ideology decisions being made are driving players away in droves.

Naturally, some of the players are really angry because they have essentially wasted money on a game that is self destructive.  Someone gave me the game so, I'm not out any cash money.  Think about that, trying to have a game that depends on lots of players where players are deliberately eliminated because they aren't as "strong" as other players.

Anyone interested has read about all the player complaints surrounding Division so I won't beat that horse.

Today, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of developing a "survival of the fittest" game" and expecting to attract and keep players.  The entire concept of "survival of the fittest" is to eliminate players until the last player, or few players, are left.  Everyone else "dies".  The game becomes a minuscule multi-player and Ubisucks loses their investment.

Anyone who invested in a game designed to eliminate the majority of players from playing is an idiot. 

Of course, I doubt if even Ubisoft actually realized what "survival of the fittest" really meant.  Ubisoft management probably threw the term around like a football never even thinking that eliminating players meant eliminating profits.

That is the kind of ignorance that really amazes me.

The Give Wall Street a Payday Act, also called "affordable care act"

Back on January 2nd, 2009 I decided to create a portfolio on Google Finance using publicly traded "health insurance" stocks.

For those of you who don't know, there are essentially four kinds of health insurance companies and none of them insure health.  They all insure that health care workers are paid, not necessarily that people who by "health care" insurance will be healthy or even have access to affordable health care.  I'm on Social Security Disability for a heart condition and I can't afford health care.  My prescription prices have gone up to where I can't afford them, even with the insurance I am forced to pay for.  That's not really off subject.

The affordable care act did not make health care more affordable, it made health care less affordable and I am a practical example of that.  Digoxin, a really old medicine made from the Foxglove plant (when I say really old, I mean people were using this a thousand years ago) went from $10 for a 90 day supply to $90 for a 90 day supply.  Once I pay a $250 deductible I have to pay a co-pay that is more than $10, so, pretty fucked.  Where I once paid $40 for Digoxin I now pay about $130 a year.

So what happened on Wall Street?

In case you are wondering, this represents a %17 annualized return.

Yeah, that beats the street.

I wish I had had the $32K to invest back in 2009.  If you are wondering if I am cheating, feel free to check the January 2nd 2009 stock prices and create your own fake portfolio.  Here is a screen grab to show the historical price for Aetna, AET

I used this website for the annualized return formula.
http://www.asecurelife.com/annualized-return-formula/

I used this website to calculate the days between today and January 2nd
http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=01&d1=02&y1=2009&m2=7&d2=20&y2=2016

I used this website to calculate the return on the DJIA, %13.5
https://dqydj.com/dow-jones-return-calculator/

The "Affordable Care Act" was just a way for Obama and other politicians to screw the American Public and pay off Wall Street.

Health Care insurance doesn't insure health care.  It insures that health care providers are paid for services, regardless whether they perform them or not and regardless of whether those services improve the health of those the services are provided to.

Obama care should be called the "make sure Wall Street and corporate Health Care providers are paid off act".

Back to the four types of Health Care providers.

The first is non-profit.

The second is private for profit.

The third is privately owned by a private or public for profit conglomerate.(public means stock shares are publicly traded, not that the government owns the conglomerate)

The fourth is a for profit publicly owned, meaning stock shares are publicly traded.

As far as I'm concerned all Health Care services should be non-profit and this includes insurance.

Society has become dependent on water, communication, electricity, heating energy, groceries and health care.  All of these should be exclusively non-profit organizations.

Corporations should not be able to profit from those things which people depend on to survive.

Aside from my personal views, which some people would say are "left wing" because their intellects are so small they only see in binary dichotomies, I suggest investing in health care.

I should have predicted the pharmaceutical issues, but, I missed that.  I focused on insurance providers.

Black Lives Matter

I don't get why people think saying "Black Lives Matter" is racist. Truthfully, I don't believe there is any such thing as "Black" as far as people are concerned. Yeah, I know I live in a world that makes a distinction between skin colors, but, really?

What is "Black"? I read a definition the other day, "Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." In logic this is called a circular definition, a logic fallacy. That's what racial division is, a logical fallacy. In fact, scientifically, race does not and has never existed. 

"Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past."

So what makes "Black Lives matter" racist? No one is saying "Black Lives Matter More Than Other Lives", which would be racist.

If I said, "Oranges taste great", would that mean "Apples taste like crap"? Would anyone infer that apples taste like crap if I say "Oranges taste great"?

In the same context, the people saying "All Lives Matter" aren't saying anything exactly wrong, but, there is the issue of invisible privilege.

What is privilege? Privilege is when a Black friend tells me that a company isn't hiring and I put in an application and I'm hired when my Black friend isn't. White privilege exists and I was fortunate enough to have benefited from it, and know that I benefited from it.

Saying "All Lives Matter" is a lot like saying "Let them eat cake", it is a comment that identifies a lack of understanding of privilege.  The legend is that Marie Antoinette believed that everyone had access to bread or cake and if there wasn't any bread they could eat cake.  Similarly, the statement "all lives matter" echos the belief that all people are treated equally.  In reality people are not treated equally.

Peter Dinklage said something while playing Tyrion Lanister on Game of Thrones, "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar.  You're only telling the world that you fear what he might say".

I've had a lot of internet bullies stylizing themselves as "hackers" censor my words over the years because they hate what I have to say, they hate free speech and they hate everyone who doesn't think exactly like them.  Fascists who are incapable of accepting the concept of freedom.  They censor people because they can, like the hall way bully locking kids in lockers or knocking books out of a kids hands, they do whatever they can get away with because the rules don't apply to them.

When we stylize terms like "Black Lives Matter" as racist because they don't include "White people", when the truth is the term does not exclude white people, we are demanding a privilege that is not ours to own.  We are claiming that our lives are more important than theirs.  We are bullies knocking the books out of people's hands.

Most of the people I know honestly believe that All Lives Matter, but, they don't understand how the invisible privilege of their skin color, their socioeconomic status, their education, have influenced their thinking.  They actually believe that Black people have the same opportunities that White people have.

"All Lives Matter" comes across a lot like "Let them eat cake" to those of us who understand the damage invisible "White" privilege has done to the "Black" community over the last 400 years.

I think race is a psychotic delusion that results in destructive behavior.  Like anyone dealing with a bunch of psychotics I have to deal with them, I need to challenge their psychosis, I need to listen to them, sure, but, I don't need to sympathize with them or humor their delusion that people are different because of their skin color.

We do tend to segregate people into different groups based on ethnicity and appearance.  In fact, people adopt specific appearances when they want to be accepted as a member of a particular social group.

We don't need to do that though.  We don't need to force people into particular social roles based on their appearance, it is just something we do.

And we need to stop doing that.